OC Animal Care Sued for Allegedly Putting Down Too Many Healthy Pets

Categories: Court, Grrranimals

Bunny_Facebook-OCAnimalCare.jpg
Facebook/OCAnimalCare
Just to be clear, Bunny is not seeking a fourth leg in the lawsuit.

The county is mum over a Seal Beach animal rescue nonprofit's $2.5 million lawsuit that alleges OC Animal Care euthanizes healthy cats and dogs too quickly.

Rose Tingle, OC Animal Activist, Urges Board of Supervisors to Put Fewer Critters to Sleep

The Voice of OC reported last week on the civil suit brought in Orange County Superior Court by Seal Beach-based nonprofit Paw Protectors Rescue.

That report was responded to in the Orange County Register by county spokeswoman Jean Pasco, who reportedly said the county had no comment, and OC animal shelter director Ryan Drabek, who is said to have claimed OC Animal Care has greatly reduced the number of animals it puts down.

Paw Protectors Rescue's Sharon Logan also alleges in her suit that the shelter fails to give proper medical treatment to injured animals and adequate water, shelter and exercise to all critters.

In addition to $2.5 million in punitive damages, Logan's suit seeks to force the county shelter to abide by state laws.

Orange County animal activist Rose Tingle in June urged the county Board of Supervisors to add at least $50,000 to the animal care budget for the coming year to reduce the number of euthanizations at the county facility.

Email: mcoker@ocweekly.com. Twitter: @MatthewTCoker. Follow OC Weekly on Twitter @ocweekly or on Facebook!



Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
11 comments
eurasiangal77
eurasiangal77

Judge David Chaffee's Ruling.

A demurrer is a pleading in a lawsuit that objects to or challenges a pleading filed by an opposing party. The word demur means "to object"; a demurrer is the document that makes the objection. Lawyers informally define a demurrer as a defendant saying, "So what?" to the pleading.

The Judge in the Orange County Superior Court has allowed a lawsuit that alleges retaliation from OC Animal Care and challenges the Euthanasia practices at O.C animal care to proceed and move forward, a trial date has been set. The lawsuit has been brought forth by Paw Protectors a rescue group and Sharon Logan an individual.

In the Judge's ruling, the Judge stated:

Respondent Orange County Animal Care’s Demurrer to the Verified Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief is OVERRULED

Demurrer to Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate

A claim for relief under CCP §1085 has been stated

Logan has alleged facts supporting her standing to bring this claim and facts upon which relief can be granted.

The two essential requirements for issuance of a writ of mandate under CCP §1085(a) are 1) a clear, present, and usually ministerial duty on the part of the respondent, and 2) a clear, present, and beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty. California Correctional Supervisors Organization, Inc. v. Department of Corrections. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 424

Respondent says Logan hasn’t sufficiently alleged either formulation. This is incorrect.

OCAC says its duties in the management of animals is discretionary, citing Food & Agriculture Code. This is not correct. Civil Code §1984, states unequivocally that a depository of living animals [animal shelter] shall “provide the animals with necessary and prompt veterinary care, nutrition, shelter and treat them kindly.” The “policy of the state” is that no “adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home.” The criteria for adoptability are specifically stated. Civil Code §1834.4 Civil Code 1834.5 states the specific efforts that must be made before an animal is euthanized, including contacting a non-profit animal rescue group such as Paw Partners. No discretion in the application of these standards is stated.

Similarly, Penal Code §597f imposes duties upon animal shelters in connection with abandoned animals.

Finally, OCAC’s reliance on Food & Agriculture Code §17006 establishes its duties to be discretionary, it does not. This section identifies conditions under which animals shall not be adopted. Again, these are mandatory requirements. In fact, as expressly noted by respondent, Food & Agriculture Code §31852(a)(2)and (b) expressly say that impounded stray dogs and cats shall be released to a non-profit unless they fall within the provisions of §17006. The use of a lot of “shalls” militates against the conclusion that there is discretion in the application of the law.

As to standing, Logan operates a non-profit. Non-profits are specifically included in the statutory scheme. Logan alleges she and Paw Protectors has been “frustrated in its efforts to save animals from death at shelters, and . . . forced to divert resources from its regular programs to, among other things, consulting on, monitoring, and investigating conditions at Defendants’ shelters.” Amended Petition, ¶3 Logan has suffered direct and particularlized injury to her “right to rescue animals impounded by the OCAC.” Amended Petition, ¶19 She has been “suspend[ed] from rescuing any animals by [Defendants Refusal] to release numerous requested animals to allow for their care instead of euthanizing said animals.” [Amended Petition, ¶15] Since the statute specifically authorizes nonprofit animal rescue groups to take animals to prevent them from being euthanized, and since Logan operates the non-profit, she has a right to the respondent’s performance of its duties in this regard. To the extent Logan may not have an individual beneficial interest because her claims may be derivative of Paw Protectors, she has public interest standing. Through the statutory scheme, the Legislature has recognized a substantial public need to prevent euthanasia. Logan certainly has an argument that she is acting in the public interest. For the purposes of a demurrer, this is sufficient.

As to the claim of uncertainty, this is an unsupported argument. The Petition is certain enough.

The conclusion that Logan has sufficiently stated a claim for a writ of mandate establishes that the Demurrer should be overruled in its entirety as to all causes of action.

Respondent Orange County Animal Care’s Demurrer to the Verified Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief is OVERRULED.

If there are any private citizens or residents of Orange County, CA that have had their pets euthanized at O.C. animal care upon owner surrender before the state mandated 72 hour hold, we would like you to please contact us, we would like to hear your story and possibly help you.

http://www.examiner.com/article/respondent-orange-county-animal-care-s-demurrer-overruled-trial-date-set

René Bruz
René Bruz

Typical Non Profit Greed and total clueless idiots ( in my opinion) why, cause I volunteered at OCAC and that place is the best run shelter! They truly care about placing animals in homes !!! I have not read the article but I will say this, it's all about numbers. To many animals in at same time NOT enough people to adopt them what do you expect ? This place works with other REAL rescues that fly chi's out of state. Also work with a very amazing lady that takes dogs and puts them into the Juvi next door to change them as service animals. Wanna see what OCAC is like, tune into netflix, find Shelter Me and watch ! I will also say that with over 300 volunteers them claiming that the animals don't get proper exercise etc is 100% false, these animals at this shelter actually get more human interaction then 80% of the animals in homes. Think about it, you work 8-10hrs, leave your dog or cat at home, then factor in 2 more hours of commuting etc then factor in 8 hrs of sleep. How much time do you spend with your pet actually ? Here at this place we log in every time we take a pet out to walk plat etc and I can say I would often be taking out a dog the 3rd time that day as others had already done so. This person at Paw Protectors Rescue should actually spend the $$$ to help adopt out more of these animals then trying to sue the county !

Diana Shabtai
Diana Shabtai

Nooooo!!! No dogs should be put down!!! \U0001f436\U0001f625\U0001f630\U0001f616\U0001f436\U0001f494\U0001f494\U0001f494

20ftjesus
20ftjesus topcommenter

Perhaps I should have said, "does she have a leg to stand on?"

20ftjesus
20ftjesus topcommenter

Any merit to her case?

eurasiangal77
eurasiangal77

Judge David Chaffee's Ruling.

A demurrer is a pleading in a lawsuit that objects to or challenges a pleading filed by an opposing party. The word demur means "to object"; a demurrer is the document that makes the objection. Lawyers informally define a demurrer as a defendant saying, "So what?" to the pleading.

The Judge in the Orange County Superior Court has allowed a lawsuit that alleges retaliation from OC Animal Care and challenges the Euthanasia practices at O.C animal care to proceed and move forward, a trial date has been set. The lawsuit has been brought forth by Paw Protectors a rescue group and Sharon Logan an individual.

In the Judge's ruling, the Judge stated:

Respondent Orange County Animal Care’s Demurrer to the Verified Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief is OVERRULED

Demurrer to Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate

A claim for relief under CCP §1085 has been stated

Logan has alleged facts supporting her standing to bring this claim and facts upon which relief can be granted.

The two essential requirements for issuance of a writ of mandate under CCP §1085(a) are 1) a clear, present, and usually ministerial duty on the part of the respondent, and 2) a clear, present, and beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty. California Correctional Supervisors Organization, Inc. v. Department of Corrections. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 424

Respondent says Logan hasn’t sufficiently alleged either formulation. This is incorrect.

OCAC says its duties in the management of animals is discretionary, citing Food & Agriculture Code. This is not correct. Civil Code §1984, states unequivocally that a depository of living animals [animal shelter] shall “provide the animals with necessary and prompt veterinary care, nutrition, shelter and treat them kindly.” The “policy of the state” is that no “adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home.” The criteria for adoptability are specifically stated. Civil Code §1834.4 Civil Code 1834.5 states the specific efforts that must be made before an animal is euthanized, including contacting a non-profit animal rescue group such as Paw Partners. No discretion in the application of these standards is stated.

Similarly, Penal Code §597f imposes duties upon animal shelters in connection with abandoned animals.

Finally, OCAC’s reliance on Food & Agriculture Code §17006 establishes its duties to be discretionary, it does not. This section identifies conditions under which animals shall not be adopted. Again, these are mandatory requirements. In fact, as expressly noted by respondent, Food & Agriculture Code §31852(a)(2)and (b) expressly say that impounded stray dogs and cats shall be released to a non-profit unless they fall within the provisions of §17006. The use of a lot of “shalls” militates against the conclusion that there is discretion in the application of the law.

As to standing, Logan operates a non-profit. Non-profits are specifically included in the statutory scheme. Logan alleges she and Paw Protectors has been “frustrated in its efforts to save animals from death at shelters, and . . . forced to divert resources from its regular programs to, among other things, consulting on, monitoring, and investigating conditions at Defendants’ shelters.” Amended Petition, ¶3 Logan has suffered direct and particularlized injury to her “right to rescue animals impounded by the OCAC.” Amended Petition, ¶19 She has been “suspend[ed] from rescuing any animals by [Defendants Refusal] to release numerous requested animals to allow for their care instead of euthanizing said animals.” [Amended Petition, ¶15] Since the statute specifically authorizes nonprofit animal rescue groups to take animals to prevent them from being euthanized, and since Logan operates the non-profit, she has a right to the respondent’s performance of its duties in this regard. To the extent Logan may not have an individual beneficial interest because her claims may be derivative of Paw Protectors, she has public interest standing. Through the statutory scheme, the Legislature has recognized a substantial public need to prevent euthanasia. Logan certainly has an argument that she is acting in the public interest. For the purposes of a demurrer, this is sufficient.

As to the claim of uncertainty, this is an unsupported argument. The Petition is certain enough.

The conclusion that Logan has sufficiently stated a claim for a writ of mandate establishes that the Demurrer should be overruled in its entirety as to all causes of action.

Respondent Orange County Animal Care’s Demurrer to the Verified Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief is OVERRULED.

If there are any private citizens or residents of Orange County, CA that have had their pets euthanized at O.C. animal care upon owner surrender before the state mandated 72 hour hold, we would like you to please contact us, we would like to hear your story and possibly help you.

http://www.examiner.com/article/respondent-orange-county-animal-care-s-demurrer-overruled-trial-date-set

Sent from my iPhone

Now Trending

Anaheim Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Fashion

Loading...